Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
GA candidate.svg


Good articles are a higher status of article than regular articles. In order to become a good article, there are certain criteria that the article must meet. These criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles.

This page is to discuss articles to decide whether they meet the GA criteria. When an article is posted here for discussion, it should have the {{pgood}} tag placed on it. This will place the article in Category:Proposed good articles.

Articles which are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also listed on Wikipedia:Good articles and are placed in Category:Good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.

Articles that are above the good article criteria can be nominated to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.

This tool can be used to find the size of an article.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have thoroughly read the criteria and the article in question. You should be prepared to fully explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly, and if there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.

Archives[change source]

Proposals for good articles[change source]

To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a GA. ~~~~

Esperanto[change source]

Esperanto (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

In this article they can find a lot of information about history, today's use and grammar of this constructed language. It is also well illustrated with multimedia files and naturally referenced with information from external sources. Venca24 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • One reason why articles on artificial languages are unconvincing is that they are so obviously written in favour of the particular system, with no balance and no genuine discussion of their many weaknesses. This article, which leans heavily on the En wiki version, is absolutely typical of the type. Too POV for me, Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • If there is more needed then only make the section "Criticism" better, can you say what these "too POV" are for that they can be neutralised? --Venca24 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders[change source]

Bernie Sanders (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have been working on this article during the summer during his surge in the polls and the article is in good condition for a GA (IMO). The article is well sources, has the proper information on the article and is updated. The article may need help in simplifying, but hey that's why I'm here. Any support and or comments to help improve the article is welcomed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Germany national football team[change source]

Germany national football team (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article should be a GA because it gives a detailed history on the team, it displays the fixtures of the team, shows their achievements, uniforms and players, etc. Any recommendations for improvements needed will be appreciated. Also, compare the article to other national football teams and you will see that it is superior. Alicezeppelin (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alicezeppelin: References are not formatted and more importantly, German football didn't start in 2000, so the page is significantly lacking content for a GA. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The intro is for a summary, not a list of wins; the layout is so-so: left-ranging photos opposite right-ranging photos; content is so-so: if you miss the point about how national leagues interact with national teams, then you are missing important content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna[change source]

Rihanna (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I believe that the article should be a GA because it gives a detailed info about the R&B singer, it has all of her albums (including the yet-to-be-released #R8 album) as well as the bit about the assault with her ex boyfriend Chris Brown too. C-Sqwad (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It needed simplifying, so I just did some, along with some copy editing. Have you checked Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles to make sure the article qualifies? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I may have done (I was half asleep). -- C-Sqwad (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
If you're not sure, please go back and check now. That should be checked before you propose a page here. When you check the length, you don't include any infoboxes, tables, navigational boxes, lists, etc. You only count the text.
I answered your other question on your talk page, because it didn't belong here. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Following on what Auntof6 said: The general text of this article seems thin. It may not be, and I'm no expert on Rihanna. But do you mind checking? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Not promoted - Per what is written above, the article is not yet in shape to be a GA here. We surely don't need to be as detailed as enwiki, but just by looking there it seems clear to me that this article is missing a lot. -Barras talk 13:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Related pages[change source]